Main Page Contact Register Log In

I meant to emphasise that the interpretations themselfs are not ambigious. Which one is orthodox is largely a historical trivia which has little bearing on validness.

I would put the statement in the same category as not calling Israel "the jewish state". It's meant to highlight they are not particularly pious and that the british beef is more with the secular side of it rather than secular vs religious. If North Korea tried to change it's name with something non-neutral like Best Korea people would not be trilled to use that name. Similarly not many people bother to mention "peoples republic" decorators in the name of China. The trouble with ISIS is that if you strip the ideologist dressing you have got nothing left. I guess the situation was similar when there were two Koreas. Maybe try calling it West-Iraq? Or Syriaq? But again that kind of name would suggest that a more permanent area would be in the formation. And usually it is good to use names that are atleast somewhat self-described.

The Western media does not call Israel “the jewish state” above all because Israel itself does not officially call itself “the jewish state”. By contrast, Iran’s official name is the Islamic Republic of Iran and the media had no scruples about using that label. It also had no trouble accepting other non-neutral labels, such as Pakistan (“the land of the clean”), “Shining Path” (for Maoist guerilla in Peru) or Korea (derived from the word “lofty”). ISIS is the only exception I know so far.
Replies (2)

North Korea's official name isn't even North Korea. It's "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" there's North in the name.
Replies (1)